Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ted Hoffman · 07-23-2002, 06:57 AM

Skeptical,
Sorry for the delay, Peter stashed too much on my plate.
Let me turn over to you: What do you believe are the strongest historical "evidence" for the existence of Jesus?

Jayhawker Soule · 07-23-2002, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by IntenSity:
MORE IMPORTANTLY
Matthew 1:16 "16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. " This establishes WITHOUT a SHADOW of doubt that "called christ" is a christian phrase, ...

Exclusively? And (forgive the brevity) if not, so what?

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Ted Hoffman · 07-24-2002, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt:
Exclusively? And (forgive the brevity) if not, so what?

[ July 23, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

Exclusivity is a superfluous requirement and is NOT necessary in arguing that "called Christ" is a christian phrase.
It can be argued that it is christian in origin (as opposed to "its christian because only christians use it") and is traceable back to the christian bible (as opposed to the Talmud). It can also be argued that its christian because it elevated Jesus to the station of thge messiah. (Which Judaists, like Josephus, DO NOT do). It can also be argued that it is a phrase that is found MORE THAN twice in christian, UNLIKE other writings. So exclusivity is unnecessary as a qualification.
Having said that, whats important is that it can be argued effectively that a chriatian background or a christian leaning influenced the insertion of that phrase in Antiquities 20. Thus a "christian interpolation".
Comprendre?

I have also argued effectively against the term being derogatory tou legomenou Christou (the so-called Christ) as Kirby argues and attributing its use to Pagan parlance (the Samaritan woman and Pilate). Its clear that even in Pilates instance, the phrase is unnecessary and it can only be argued that it was inserted to indicate that Gentiles also regarded Jesus as the Christ, thus elevates Jesus.

Jayhawker Soule · 07-24-2002, 06:46 AM

Quote:

IntenSity asserts:
Exclusivity is a superfluous requirement and is NOT necessary in arguing that "called Christ" is a christian phrase.

It is an implicit and baseless assertion given that Jesus, be he mythical or not, was 'called Christ' by his followers, rendering 'called Christ' a perfectly reasonable phrase.

Quote:

IntenSity asserts:
It can be argued that it is christian in origin (as opposed to "its christian because only christians use it") ...

It can, and you have. But, the fact that you've argued it does not, in itself, validate the argument.

Quote:

IntenSity asserts:
... and is traceable back to the christian bible (as opposed to the Talmud).

What is this other than post hoc fallacy boldly presented?

Quote:

IntenSity asserts:
It can also be argued that its christian because it elevated Jesus to the station of thge messiah.

No, it cannot, because it does no such thing (as opposed to, e.g., the near ubiquitous "the Christ").

Quote:

IntenSity asserts:
(Which Judaists, like Josephus, DO NOT do).

Once it's understood that the phrase identifies rather than elevates, the parenthetical, no matter how loudly proclaimed, is rendered groundless.

Quote:

IntenSity asserts:
It can also be argued that it is a phrase that is found MORE THAN twice in christian, UNLIKE other writings. So exclusivity is unnecessary as a qualification.

By "MORE THAN twice" I assume you mean 4 times, and by "UNLIKE other writings" I assume you mean exclusively christian.

Quote:

IntenSity asserts:
Having said that, whats important is that it can be argued effectively that a chriatian background or a christian leaning influenced the insertion of that phrase in Antiquities 20.

It "can be argued effectively" only if the foundation laid is sound, and I do not believe it is.

Quote:

IntenSity asserts:
I have also argued effectively against the term being derogatory tou legomenou Christou (the so-called Christ) as Kirby argues and attributing its use to Pagan parlance (the Samaritan woman and Pilate).

That's not my understanding of Kirby's input.

Quote:

IntenSity asserts:
Its clear that even in Pilates instance, the phrase is unnecessary and it can only be argued that it was inserted to indicate that Gentiles also regarded Jesus as the Christ, thus elevates Jesus.

Really? Well, then, if it is so clear, you should have little difficulty proving it.

Peter Kirby · 07-24-2002, 04:44 PM

IntenSity writes: I have also argued effectively against the term being derogatory tou legomenou Christou (the so-called Christ) as Kirby argues

I have never said that the phrase was necessarily "derogatory." That is your word, not mine.

IntenSity had written: Maybe its for this reason that some(Kirby?) say he could have used the derogatory term "so-called" and not "called".

I replied: Na, that's accepted as a possibility because of philological facts; Josephus elsewhere uses the Greek phrase to mean 'so called' or 'alleged'.

Note that I said that this is a possibility, not a certainty.

I also replied to NOGO, stating that "called Christ" and "alleged to be Christ," while having different nuances in English, can be represented with the same Greek words.

Note that I allow that these different English renderings of the Greek have different meanings, and I do not say that there is proof of one or the other. So, our analysis of the passage must proceed on the assumption that any of these renderings are viable representations of the connotations of the phrase in Ant. 20.200.

Let me explain what this means. It means that the arguments on this point do not afford a sound basis for a conclusion either way. Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz state, "The formulation o legomenoV cristoV (who is called Christ) implies neither assent nor doubt (cf. Matt 1.16)." (p. 65) So, if someone were to argue that the phrase Iesou tou legomenou Christou is necessarily skeptical and could not have been written by a Christian interpolator, it is replied that the phrase could be used in a non-doubting way, such as in Matthew 1:16 -- of course, a phrase that simply does not cast doubt does not imply assent either. By the same token, if someone were to argue that the phrase Iesou tou legomenou Christou is necessarily neutral and that Josephus could not be neutral, it is replied that the phrase could be used by Josephus in a skeptical way as 'alleged' or 'so-called', as pointed out by R. T. France (see post July 17, 2002 05:56 PM).

IntenSity writes: Of course you have argued for the "lost reference" (Jewish War 6.5.3?) in explaining this incongruity, but that is a very apologetic approach towards the issue, which is not so bad in itself, but there it is.

If you have read Doherty's article without studying my own most recent essay, you would conclude that I think there was a "lost reference" that could possibly be placed in Wars 6.5.3 if a plausible location were demanded. But, if you read my most recent essay carefully, you would see that I do not hold this position any longer. And, by the way, Doherty (at least in his book and website) thinks that there was in fact a "lost reference" but that Josephus did not write it. I myself no longer believe that the "lost reference" was ever a part of Josephus at all.

Here is the section of my current essay that treats this issue.

Quote:

Here are the references from Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome.

Origen, Commentary on Matthew 10.17. "And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise, that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the 'Antiquities of the Jews' in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said, that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ. And the wonderful thing is, that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great; and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James."
Origen, Against Celsus 1.47. "Now this writer [Josephus], although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless-being, although against his will, not far from the truth-that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ,--the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure."

Origen, Against Celsus 2.13. "But at that time there were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of Nero, and lasted till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes dear, on account of Jesus Christ the Son of God."

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 2.23.22. "James was so admirable a man and so celebrated among all for his justice, that the more sensible even of the Jews were of the opinion that this was the cause of the siege of Jerusalem, which happened to them immediately after his martyrdom for no other reason than their daring act against him. Josephus, at least, has not hesitated to testify this in his writings, where he says, 'These things happened to the Jews to avenge James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus, that is called the Christ. For the Jews slew him, although he was a most just man.' And the same writer records his death also in the twentieth book of his Antiquities in the following words: 'But the emperor, when he learned of the death of Festus, sent Albinus to be procurator of Judea. But the younger Ananus, who, as we have already said, had obtained the high priesthood, was of an exceedingly bold and reckless disposition. He belonged, moreover, to the sect of the Sadducees, who are the most cruel of all the Jews in the execution of judgment, as we have already shown. Ananus, therefore, being of this character, and supposing that he had a favorable opportunity on account of the fact that Festus was dead, and Albinus was still on the way, called together the Sanhedrim, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, James by name, together with some others, and accused them of violating the law, and condemned them to be stoned. But those in the city who seemed most moderate and skilled in the law were very angry at this, and sent secretly to the king, requesting him to order Ananus to cease such proceedings. For he had not done right even this first time. And certain of them also went to meet Albinus, who was journeying from Alexandria, and reminded him that it was not lawful for Ananus to summon the Sanhedrim without his knowledge. And Albinus, being persuaded by their representations, wrote in anger to Ananus, threatening him with punishment. And the king, Agrippa, in consequence, deprived him, of the high priesthood, which he had held threemonths, and appointed Jesus, the son of Damnaeus.'"

Jerome, Illustrious Men. "Josephus records the tradition that this James was of so great sanctity and reputation among the people that the downfall of Jerusalem was believed to be on account of his death."

Eisenman has suggested that this reference derives from a copy of Josephus from a passage distinct from our Ant. 20.9.1 reference, which nowhere says that the death of James led to the destruction of Jerusalem. Although one can't be sure, it would help such a theory to propose a possible location. Where in Josephus could this quote be? Origen tells us that it appears when Josephus was "seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple" (in Contra Celsum 1.47). That makes me think of Wars of the Jews 6.5.3, shortly after a vivid description of the Roman seige. In this passage, along with some miraculous portents, Josephus tells us about a certain lunatic who went about for seven years and five months saying, "Woe, woe to Jerusalem!" He was killed in the seige c. 70 CE, which means that he began this wailing in the year 62 CE according to Josephus, "four years before the war began." This is the same year that James was executed by the high priest. So this is a possible location.

Other scholars, such as Steve Mason, think that the reference derives from Origen misreading Josephus. I can see how that could happen. One might interpret the whole of Josephus as seeking the causes for the war. Maybe Origen just needed a scapegoat for his polemic. Josephus fit the bill. This suggestion could be supported by the observation that Jerome doesn't seem to have a clue of where this would be found in Josephus, and Eusebius' apparent quotation looks so very fragmentary. Even Origen, who refers three times, never gives an exact quote. So this could be something like a patristic rumor about what Josephus said, started by Origen. This suggestion could also be supported by the observation that, perhaps, scribal deletion of the so-called lost reference is not entirely explicable in a satisfactory way. Zvi Baras writes: "Such an assumption [that there was a lost reference] overlooks the question of why the Testimonium passage should have remained in Josephus' text, while the story of James' martryrdom - neither disdainful nor defamatory toward Christ - should have been excised from Josephus' writings." (Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, p. 343) Moreover, Zvi Baras quotes Against Celsus 1.47 and Ecclesiastical History 2.23.20 and comments: "The precise parallelism between the two texts has already been remarked by Chadwick, who proved that Eusebius quoted Origen's passage verbatim, but changed it to direct speech." (ibid., p. 345) So it seems likely that there was no other passage concerning James to be found in Josephus. Of course, this theory then casts aspersions on the ability of the Church Fathers (particularly Eusebius) to quote Josephus accurately.

IntenSity writes: Introducing new items that can derail the discussion amount to digression. The number of words is irrelevant.

The six words did not derail the discussion but rather identified James. Josephus identified James and moved on; at least, that is how the passage reads now.

IntenSity writes: He was writing to a gentile audience as mentioned above, who probably had no idea what "christ" meant.

You may be right; Tacitus and Pliny the Younger show no knowledge of the etymological meaning of 'Christus'. However, if a reader had heard of Christians at all, the reader would know that the Christians worshiped Christ or claimed a person called Christ as their founder.

IntenSity writes: Unless he wanted to rile the Judaist Jews.

Please demonstrate that the phrase would rile the Judaist Jews.

IntenSity writes: I have no idea, I can speculate that they (the christian interpolators) wanted to establish Jesus as the Christ (without any equivocations),

Please demonstrate that the phrase would have established that Jesus was the Christ.

Eusebius quotes the 20.200 passage (H.E. 2.23.22). Does Eusebius say that this passage testified that Jesus was the Christ?

IntenSity writes: there was the need to show that James (who started) the Jerusalem church, was a brother to Jesus (or heir)

Please demonstrate that there was a concern in the second century to show that James was a brother to Jesus.

Origen refers to the 20.200 passage. Origen believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Did the reference convince Origen that Jesus was the brother of James?

IntenSity writes: Irrespective of the possible motives, it has been established that its an interpolation.

Please summarize the arguments that established that there was an interpolation in Ant. 20.200. (You might want to do that in response to the same request at the end of this post.)

I wrote: Apparently, you do not understand exactly what I mean. I said that the most-well known way to identify Jesus would have been through the 'Christ' thingy. I did not say that this was absolutely the only way. I wrote: "I acknowledge that Josephus could have chosen more than one way to identify Jesus. This does not imply that Josephus did not identify Jesus in the way that Josephus did."

IntenSity writes: So we can conclude that as concerns the question about whether Josephus identified Jesus as ths christ, It is a debatable matter? Is that a fair assesment?

As to whether Josephus identified Jesus as the Christ, that is not true, regardless of whether or not there was an interpolation in Ant. 20.200 (and assuming that the Testimonium has been tampered or inserted). The phrase says that Jesus was called Christ and/or alleged to be the Christ; it does not assert the identity of being the Christ objectively.

I have explained at the start of this post that I think the arguments concerning whether this phrase was an affirmation, a neutral statement, or a skeptical comment do not establish either authenticity or inauthenticity. If either authenticity or inauthenticity are to be established, other grounds will have to be found. I will summarize two arguments for authenticity at the end of this post. I request that you provide the arguments for inauthenticity.

I wrote: If it is not exclusively Christian terminology, then there is no basis here for forming an argument that the phrase could not have been written by the non-Christian Josephus.

IntenSity writes: You are comitting the fallacy of undistributed middle (black and white thinking?).

What I mean is this: if this is a phrase that could be used by a non-Christian, then it cannot be argued cogently that Josephus would not have used the phrase simply because Josephus was not a Christian. I see no fallacy in this statement.

If you are making a different argument (other than that Josephus would not have used the phrase because Josephus was not a Christian), perhaps you could elaborate on that argument. Premises and a conclusion might make it easier to understand.

IntenSity writes: It could be christian in origin and another basis would be because its largely found in christian (as opposed to historical or Judaist) writings.

If it is true, as I have suggested, that the Greek term Christos was a term applied only to Jesus by people in antiquity, then the phrase "called the Christ" would only be found in Christian works and in works discussing Christianity. Since not many works discussing Christianity survive, and those that do mainly survive in snippets, it is not surprising that we do not find more examples of Jesus being mentioned as Iesou tou legomenou Christou.

I wrote: Also, expressions can be changed: as I pointed out, there is no phrase like this found in the second century, even though this is the period in which an interpolation would have to have been made.

IntenSity writes: This 1st and second century argument; perhaps you may want to revise it given we had many christian groups fighting to promote their "creeds"?

Please explain why this would provoke me to revise this argument.

IntenSity writes: Does Origen refer to James elsewhere?

If he does, then your argument stands, I dont need to elaborate on the consequences of the contrary.

My argument did not concern the phrase that Origen used to identify James but rather the phrase that Origen used to identify Jesus. Origen refers to Jesus a great many times, but nowhere but in these three references to Josephus does Origen refer to Iesou tou legomenou Christou or an equivalent Greek phrase with different inflections.

(If you were just curious, Origen seems to refer to James only when referring to Paul's letters or to Josephus and once when quoting the Mark 6:3 passage.)

IntenSity writes: Lets start with Pilates Matthew 27:
"22"What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?" Pilate asked.
They all answered, "Crucify him!" "
Tell me, were there many Jesuses due to be crucified (given the audience Pilate was addressing)? If NO, was it necessary to add "called Christ" in that passage?
Its like asking protesters at the white house gate:
"do you want to talk to George Bush called the president?"
More importantly, the phrase IS NOT derogatory.

But I never claimed that the phrase is "derogatory" (see the start of this post).

Later IntenSity writes: Its clear that even in Pilates instance, the phrase is unnecessary and it can only be argued that it was inserted to indicate that Gentiles also regarded Jesus as the Christ, thus elevates Jesus.

I do not think that this is the only interpretation. If that were intended, that could be emphasized with the phrase 'Jesus who is the Christ'.

The first reference to 'Jesus called Messiah' in the mouth of Pilate, as it is rendered in some manuscripts, reads (Mt 22:17): "Which one do you want me to release to you, Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus called Messiah?" In this situation, there was more than one person named Jesus, and that is why Pilate distinguishes them in this way in Matthew's narrative. The reference in v. 22 could be interpreted as simply repeating the way in which Jesus called Christ was identified before (or as again making the distinction).

IntenSity writes: The Samaritan Woman
"25The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us." "

Here too, the phrase IS NOT derogatory.

I agree. But maybe this reference should be disregarded entirely for two reasons: First, the reference in the mouth of the speaker in the narrative does not mean Jesus but is the general hope of Jews and Samaritans. Second, the reference is a translation of the Semitic 'Messiah' into the Greek 'Christos', as can be seen from the Greek (messias ercetai o legomenoV cristoV). So it is not quite germane to the discussion of how people would identify Jesus.

IntenSity writes: Therefore IT is a christian phrase

IntenSity writes: This establishes WITHOUT a SHADOW of doubt that "called christ" is a christian phrase

Please explain exactly what you mean by the term "christian phrase."

I feel like we have gotten bogged down in petty disputes and have lost track of the major bone of contention, which is whether or not there was an interpolation in Antiquities 20.200.

I suggest that there are at least two arguments for authenticity.

1. Origen refers to Josephus in identifying James as "the brother of Jesus called Christ," first in the Commentary on Matthew and twice later in Contra Celsus. The evidence shows that Origen's copy had the phrase in Josephus. As a matter of fact, this is the earliest quoted phrase in the entire twenty book Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus. This is textual evidence of the highest order. Unless there are strong reasons for believing that the phrase is interpolated, we are justified in accepting it as part of Josephus.

2. Neither the hypothesis of deliberate insertion or marginal gloss provide a good explanation of the facts, while the hypothesis of authenticity works quite well because it makes sense that Josephus might identify James through his better-known brother and identify Jesus through his most common cognomen.

2A. The hypothesis of deliberate insertion does not make sense because, contrary to certain baseless assertions, the phrase does not contain any theological affirmation or christological assent. Since the matter of the existence of Jesus does not seem to have been disputed in antiquity, and because nobody quotes from 20.200 to prove the existence of Jesus or the Messiahship of Jesus, the phrase does not make sense as a deliberate falsification of the text.

2B. The hypothesis of a marginal gloss, which was later incorporated into the text, is also not a very good explanation. A search of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers, the extracanonical writings, and the New Testament will produce no instance in which James is identified as "the brother of Jesus" (let alone "the brother of Jesus called Christ"). It is thus not likely to be a phrase to come naturally from a Christian pen when identifying James.

OK, you might not agree with these arguments, but they are not advanced without grounds. Could you please summarize the arguments for inauthenticity for comparison?

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby · 07-24-2002, 05:01 PM

I wrote: "First, the reference in the mouth of the speaker in the narrative does not mean Jesus but is the general hope of Jews and Samaritans."

Of course, the author of John with his penchant for irony would think that the speaker, even though in ignorance at the time, unwittingly was speaking of Jesus.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan · 07-25-2002, 04:33 AM

A search of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers, the extracanonical writings, and the New Testament will produce no instance in which James is identified as "the brother of Jesus" (let alone "the brother of Jesus called Christ"). It is thus not likely to be a phrase to come naturally from a Christian pen when identifying James.

<shakes head>
<wipes eyes>
<sound of gears grinding in head>

Here's the whole passage:

1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Peter, I've always believed this to be a marginal gloss, and now you've gone and made me think about this again.

Josephus does not identify "James." He identifies "the brother of Jesus" whose name happens to be James. Further on in the passage, he refers to two other Jesus,' one the son of Damneus who was made high priest (outlined above) and a couple of sections on, Jesus son of Gamaliel who follows him in that position.

It seems to me that the marginal gloss must be the messiah comment, and not the entire "Jesus" comment. What if the original text read "The brother of Jesus, whose name was James.." -- in other words, an ordinary bloke named James -- and the Jesus reference is to Jesus Damneus. Although the reader would need to get to the end of the section to see the connection, what if James is the son of Damneus as well and the brother of that Jesus, and the High Priesthood goes to that family as compensation for the unfortunate death of James.

Just tossing out an idea. I'm sure it has been hashed out before -- what's the answer?

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman · 07-25-2002, 07:41 AM

ReasonableDoubt
It is an implicit and baseless assertion given that Jesus, be he mythical or not, was 'called Christ' by his followers, rendering 'called Christ' a perfectly reasonable phrase.
Reasonable but NOT relevant and also unnecessary in the context in which the passage appears, and for the readers, who were non-jew. Josephus DID NOT say Jesus was called Christ by his followers, that is a figment of your imagination.
It can, and you have. But, the fact that you've argued it does not, in itself, validate the argument.
Until you or anyone else refutes it, it is a valid argument.
What is this other than post hoc fallacy boldly presented?
If your grasp of logic is poor, do not invoke fallacies you cannot apply to particular arguments. Naming a fallacy without effectively applying it to an argument is futile.
No, it cannot, because it does no such thing (as opposed to, e.g., the near ubiquitous "the Christ")
Matthew did NOT use the Christ in Matt 1:16. Did he have someone other than "the Christ" in mind?

Once it's understood that the phrase identifies rather than elevates, the parenthetical, no matter how loudly proclaimed, is rendered groundless
Explain why someone would identify George Bush as "George Bush called President" and NOT simply as "George Bush".
Christ is a status, to add it as an identification alongside someones' name is to elevate that person to that status.
Once it's understood that the phrase identifies rather than elevates, the parenthetical, no matter how loudly proclaimed, is rendered groundless.
You could have a point there but to identify someone as the Christ is to recognise someone as the Christ to recognise someone as such is TO elevate them to that status. And even if its not elevation, its a christian footprint that is found in the NT, so a christian must have inserted the passage.
The argument is multifaceted, too bad for you.

By "MORE THAN twice" I assume you mean 4 times, and by "UNLIKE other writings" I assume you mean exclusively christian.
You dont have to assume anything. I have addressed your "exclusivity" bait I have also specified what I mean by non-christian writings in the context in which we are speaking.
If you want clarification, ask please.

It "can be argued effectively" only if the foundation laid is sound, and I do not believe it is.
My arguments are NOT meant to accomodate your beliefs and they stand on their own merit. If you want to refute them, do so, but your beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion.
If the foundation is NOT sound, demostrate why. If you CAN NOT do that (which is the status quo), it means the foundation is sound.

That's not my understanding of Kirby's input.
You could do better if you shared with me your understanding of Kirbys' point.
Really? Well, then, if it is so clear, you should have little difficulty proving it.
And you should have NO difficulty refuting my arguments, which you havent done so far.

Ted Hoffman · 07-25-2002, 09:45 AM

Kirby
I have never said that the phrase was necessarily "derogatory." That is your word, not mine.
Huh, huh, why do you deny now and NOT earlier when I asked you responded:

Na, that's accepted as a possibility because of philological facts; Josephus elsewhere uses the Greek phrase to mean 'so called' or 'alleged'.

However, it's not necessary. I don't think saying 'called' implies assent

You said "accepted as a possibility" and did not disavow the idea yet I explicitly included your name with a question Mark. So it was a tacit agreement on your part. If you had said "accepted by others", that would be another story but you said accepted it was a possibility.

So, why the backtracking now? Is something wrong?

Note that I said that this is a possibility, not a certainty.
Everything is a possibility of course, we cant be certain about events that happened in our absence.
We can only talk of degrees of certainty or probabilities and even after that, anything is still possible.

But Okay, you have distanced yourself from it. I will let you loose.

Let me explain what this means. It means that the arguments on this point do not afford a sound basis for a conclusion either way. Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz state, "The formulation o legomenoV cristoV (who is called Christ) implies neither assent nor doubt (cf. Matt 1.16)." (p. 65) So, if someone were to argue that the phrase Iesou tou legomenou Christou is necessarily skeptical and could not have been written by a Christian interpolator, it is replied that the phrase could be used in a non-doubting way, such as in Matthew 1:16 -- of course, a phrase that simply does not cast doubt does not imply assent either. By the same token, if someone were to argue that the phrase Iesou tou legomenou Christou is necessarily neutral and that Josephus could not be neutral, it is replied that the phrase could be used by Josephus in a skeptical way as 'alleged' or 'so-called', as pointed out by R. T. France (see post July 17, 2002 05:56 PM).
Are you saying there is no answer to the question regarding the authenticity of the phrase or are you saying you have no stand on the issue?

Gotta run, will pick from here tomorrow.

Peter Kirby · 07-25-2002, 12:35 PM

I wrote: Josephus would not care about inflaming Christians, as Christians were not a part of the audience of Josephus.

IntenSity wrote: So he was writing with reckless abandon with all cares thrown to the winds?

I won't take your most recent misunderstanding too seriously. You've made worse gaffes before.

IntenSity writes: Huh, huh, why do you deny now and NOT earlier when I asked you responded:

I quoted this response myself in the post above. You'd think I'd know what my own post meant.

IntenSity writes: You said "accepted as a possibility" and did not disavow the idea yet I explicitly included your name with a question Mark. So it was a tacit agreement on your part. If you had said "accepted by others", that would be another story but you said accepted it was a possibility.

I did not say "accepted by others" because that is not what I meant (although it certainly is accepted by some others). What I accepted was this: the idea that Josephus was expressing skepticism with this phrase has no good evidence against it.

Note that I have never said that the idea that Josephus was accepting skepticism with the phrase rises to the level of certainty or is the truth. This is because, as I pointed out to NOGO (mentioned just above), I think that "called Christ" and "alleged to be Christ" (as well as "so-called Christ" for that matter) can be represented by the same Greek phrase.

IntenSity writes: So, why the backtracking now? Is something wrong?

The only thing wrong here is the way in which you twist and/or do not comprehend what I write.
IntenSity writes: Everything is a possibility of course, we cant be certain about events that happened in our absence.

We can only talk of degrees of certainty or probabilities and even after that, anything is still possible.

OK, I will bump it up from being 'possible' to being 'plausible' or 'viable', whichever is stronger.

IntenSity writes: But Okay, you have distanced yourself from it. I will let you loose.

As I said, I won't be taking your most recent misinterpetation too seriously.

I wrote: Let me explain what this means. It means that the arguments on this point do not afford a sound basis for a conclusion either way. Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz state, "The formulation o legomenoV cristoV (who is called Christ) implies neither assent nor doubt (cf. Matt 1.16)." (p. 65) So, if someone were to argue that the phrase Iesou tou legomenou Christou is necessarily skeptical and could not have been written by a Christian interpolator, it is replied that the phrase could be used in a non-doubting way, such as in Matthew 1:16 -- of course, a phrase that simply does not cast doubt does not imply assent either. By the same token, if someone were to argue that the phrase Iesou tou legomenou Christou is necessarily neutral and that Josephus could not be neutral, it is replied that the phrase could be used by Josephus in a skeptical way as 'alleged' or 'so-called', as pointed out by R. T. France (see post July 17, 2002 05:56 PM).

IntenSity writes: Are you saying there is no answer to the question regarding the authenticity of the phrase or are you saying you have no stand on the issue?

I mean that I discredit two arguments:

1. The argument that a Christian scribe could not have written Iesou tou legomenou Christou because it would have necessarily indicated doubt.

2. The argument that a non-Christian Josephus could not have written Iesou tou legomenou Christou because it is necessarily non-affirming-non-denying when Josephus would have indicated doubt.

Although I discredit these two arguments, I allow that other arguments could be made. I wrote: "If either authenticity or inauthenticity are to be established, other grounds will have to be found." Indeed, I refer to two different arguments for authenticity in the post above.

I have not made a commitment either way. If I were forced to answer 'yes or no', I would say that there is a stronger chance that the phrase is authentic than that the phrase is interpolated, in my assessment. But I am always looking for evidence that might cause me to revise my assessment.

best,
Peter Kirby

[Netscape messes up spacing of paragraphs.]

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: peterkirby ]

07-25-2002, 04:33 AM	#137
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	A search of the ante-Nicene Church Fathers, the extracanonical writings, and the New Testament will produce no instance in which James is identified as "the brother of Jesus" (let alone "the brother of Jesus called Christ"). It is thus not likely to be a phrase to come naturally from a Christian pen when identifying James. <shakes head> <wipes eyes> <sound of gears grinding in head> Here's the whole passage: 1. AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. (24) Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. Peter, I've always believed this to be a marginal gloss, and now you've gone and made me think about this again. Josephus does not identify "James." He identifies "the brother of Jesus" whose name happens to be James. Further on in the passage, he refers to two other Jesus,' one the son of Damneus who was made high priest (outlined above) and a couple of sections on, Jesus son of Gamaliel who follows him in that position. It seems to me that the marginal gloss must be the messiah comment, and not the entire "Jesus" comment. What if the original text read "The brother of Jesus, whose name was James.." -- in other words, an ordinary bloke named James -- and the Jesus reference is to Jesus Damneus. Although the reader would need to get to the end of the section to see the connection, what if James is the son of Damneus as well and the brother of that Jesus, and the High Priesthood goes to that family as compensation for the unfortunate death of James. Just tossing out an idea. I'm sure it has been hashed out before -- what's the answer? Vorkosigan

07-25-2002, 12:35 PM	#140
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	I wrote: Josephus would not care about inflaming Christians, as Christians were not a part of the audience of Josephus. IntenSity wrote: So he was writing with reckless abandon with all cares thrown to the winds? I won't take your most recent misunderstanding too seriously. You've made worse gaffes before. IntenSity writes: Huh, huh, why do you deny now and NOT earlier when I asked you responded: I quoted this response myself in the post above. You'd think I'd know what my own post meant. IntenSity writes: You said "accepted as a possibility" and did not disavow the idea yet I explicitly included your name with a question Mark. So it was a tacit agreement on your part. If you had said "accepted by others", that would be another story but you said accepted it was a possibility. I did not say "accepted by others" because that is not what I meant (although it certainly is accepted by some others). What I accepted was this: the idea that Josephus was expressing skepticism with this phrase has no good evidence against it. Note that I have never said that the idea that Josephus was accepting skepticism with the phrase rises to the level of certainty or is the truth. This is because, as I pointed out to NOGO (mentioned just above), I think that "called Christ" and "alleged to be Christ" (as well as "so-called Christ" for that matter) can be represented by the same Greek phrase. IntenSity writes: So, why the backtracking now? Is something wrong? The only thing wrong here is the way in which you twist and/or do not comprehend what I write. IntenSity writes: Everything is a possibility of course, we cant be certain about events that happened in our absence. We can only talk of degrees of certainty or probabilities and even after that, anything is still possible. OK, I will bump it up from being 'possible' to being 'plausible' or 'viable', whichever is stronger. IntenSity writes: But Okay, you have distanced yourself from it. I will let you loose. As I said, I won't be taking your most recent misinterpetation too seriously. I wrote: Let me explain what this means. It means that the arguments on this point do not afford a sound basis for a conclusion either way. Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz state, "The formulation o legomenoV cristoV (who is called Christ) implies neither assent nor doubt (cf. Matt 1.16)." (p. 65) So, if someone were to argue that the phrase Iesou tou legomenou Christou is necessarily skeptical and could not have been written by a Christian interpolator, it is replied that the phrase could be used in a non-doubting way, such as in Matthew 1:16 -- of course, a phrase that simply does not cast doubt does not imply assent either. By the same token, if someone were to argue that the phrase Iesou tou legomenou Christou is necessarily neutral and that Josephus could not be neutral, it is replied that the phrase could be used by Josephus in a skeptical way as 'alleged' or 'so-called', as pointed out by R. T. France (see post July 17, 2002 05:56 PM). IntenSity writes: Are you saying there is no answer to the question regarding the authenticity of the phrase or are you saying you have no stand on the issue? I mean that I discredit two arguments: 1. The argument that a Christian scribe could not have written Iesou tou legomenou Christou because it would have necessarily indicated doubt. 2. The argument that a non-Christian Josephus could not have written Iesou tou legomenou Christou because it is necessarily non-affirming-non-denying when Josephus would have indicated doubt. Although I discredit these two arguments, I allow that other arguments could be made. I wrote: "If either authenticity or inauthenticity are to be established, other grounds will have to be found." Indeed, I refer to two different arguments for authenticity in the post above. I have not made a commitment either way. If I were forced to answer 'yes or no', I would say that there is a stronger chance that the phrase is authentic than that the phrase is interpolated, in my assessment. But I am always looking for evidence that might cause me to revise my assessment. best, Peter Kirby [Netscape messes up spacing of paragraphs.] [ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: peterkirby ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-23-2002, 06:57 AM	#131
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Skeptical, Sorry for the delay, Peter stashed too much on my plate. Let me turn over to you: What do you believe are the strongest historical "evidence" for the existence of Jesus?

07-24-2002, 05:01 PM	#136
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	I wrote: "First, the reference in the mouth of the speaker in the narrative does not mean Jesus but is the general hope of Jews and Samaritans." Of course, the author of John with his penchant for irony would think that the speaker, even though in ignorance at the time, unwittingly was speaking of Jesus. best, Peter Kirby

07-25-2002, 07:41 AM	#138
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	ReasonableDoubt It is an implicit and baseless assertion given that Jesus, be he mythical or not, was 'called Christ' by his followers, rendering 'called Christ' a perfectly reasonable phrase. Reasonable but NOT relevant and also unnecessary in the context in which the passage appears, and for the readers, who were non-jew. Josephus DID NOT say Jesus was called Christ by his followers, that is a figment of your imagination. It can, and you have. But, the fact that you've argued it does not, in itself, validate the argument. Until you or anyone else refutes it, it is a valid argument. What is this other than post hoc fallacy boldly presented? If your grasp of logic is poor, do not invoke fallacies you cannot apply to particular arguments. Naming a fallacy without effectively applying it to an argument is futile. No, it cannot, because it does no such thing (as opposed to, e.g., the near ubiquitous "the Christ") Matthew did NOT use the Christ in Matt 1:16. Did he have someone other than "the Christ" in mind? Once it's understood that the phrase identifies rather than elevates, the parenthetical, no matter how loudly proclaimed, is rendered groundless Explain why someone would identify George Bush as "George Bush called President" and NOT simply as "George Bush". Christ is a status, to add it as an identification alongside someones' name is to elevate that person to that status. Once it's understood that the phrase identifies rather than elevates, the parenthetical, no matter how loudly proclaimed, is rendered groundless. You could have a point there but to identify someone as the Christ is to recognise someone as the Christ to recognise someone as such is TO elevate them to that status. And even if its not elevation, its a christian footprint that is found in the NT, so a christian must have inserted the passage. The argument is multifaceted, too bad for you. By "MORE THAN twice" I assume you mean 4 times, and by "UNLIKE other writings" I assume you mean exclusively christian. You dont have to assume anything. I have addressed your "exclusivity" bait I have also specified what I mean by non-christian writings in the context in which we are speaking. If you want clarification, ask please. It "can be argued effectively" only if the foundation laid is sound, and I do not believe it is. My arguments are NOT meant to accomodate your beliefs and they stand on their own merit. If you want to refute them, do so, but your beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion. If the foundation is NOT sound, demostrate why. If you CAN NOT do that (which is the status quo), it means the foundation is sound. That's not my understanding of Kirby's input. You could do better if you shared with me your understanding of Kirbys' point. Really? Well, then, if it is so clear, you should have little difficulty proving it. And you should have NO difficulty refuting my arguments, which you havent done so far.

07-25-2002, 09:45 AM	#139
Ted Hoffman Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: "" Posts: 3,863	Kirby I have never said that the phrase was necessarily "derogatory." That is your word, not mine. Huh, huh, why do you deny now and NOT earlier when I asked you responded: Na, that's accepted as a possibility because of philological facts; Josephus elsewhere uses the Greek phrase to mean 'so called' or 'alleged'. However, it's not necessary. I don't think saying 'called' implies assent You said "accepted as a possibility" and did not disavow the idea yet I explicitly included your name with a question Mark. So it was a tacit agreement on your part. If you had said "accepted by others", that would be another story but you said accepted it was a possibility. So, why the backtracking now? Is something wrong? Note that I said that this is a possibility, not a certainty. Everything is a possibility of course, we cant be certain about events that happened in our absence. We can only talk of degrees of certainty or probabilities and even after that, anything is still possible. But Okay, you have distanced yourself from it. I will let you loose. Let me explain what this means. It means that the arguments on this point do not afford a sound basis for a conclusion either way. Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz state, "The formulation o legomenoV cristoV (who is called Christ) implies neither assent nor doubt (cf. Matt 1.16)." (p. 65) So, if someone were to argue that the phrase Iesou tou legomenou Christou is necessarily skeptical and could not have been written by a Christian interpolator, it is replied that the phrase could be used in a non-doubting way, such as in Matthew 1:16 -- of course, a phrase that simply does not cast doubt does not imply assent either. By the same token, if someone were to argue that the phrase Iesou tou legomenou Christou is necessarily neutral and that Josephus could not be neutral, it is replied that the phrase could be used by Josephus in a skeptical way as 'alleged' or 'so-called', as pointed out by R. T. France (see post July 17, 2002 05:56 PM). Are you saying there is no answer to the question regarding the authenticity of the phrase or are you saying you have no stand on the issue? Gotta run, will pick from here tomorrow.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.